541 KB0 KB201120252019Burkelc Juras, LinaFerčič, Alešštevilka:1letnik:79str. 49-77, 218-219COBISSID_HOST:17090385ISSN:1854-3839URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-TOZ5T8VSenPravna fakultetaZbornik znanstvenih razprav (Pravna fakulteta. 1991)autonomy of EU lawavtonomija prava EUCourt of Justice of the European UnionEuropean Convention on Human RightsEvropska konvencija o človekovih pravicahMnenje 2/13Opinion 2/13Sodišče EUOpinion 2/13| game over or just another pit-stop?|In a controversial Opinion 2/13, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) took a clear and unequivocal position - the Draft Agreement on the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is incompatible with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on EU or with Protocol No. 8 to the ECHR. Consequently, the agreement envisaged cannot enter into force unless it is amended accordingly or amended in the Treaties. Opinion 2/13 presents a significant challenge on the path of the EU accession to the ECHR, but in no case does it eliminate or undermine any association obligations. Therefore, the key to Opinion 2/13 will be to find a path that will lead to joining, which is not likely to be easy, but it is feasible. If the process of association is to be implemented in a professional manner, with expert arguments, and everyday politics do not prevail, it is considered that some changes to the Draft Agreement will be possible in the direction indicated by the CJEU. If and to the extent that it does not occur, this should not be attributed (only) to the CJEU. Let us not forget that in the Treaties, the Member States have not only set the EU's obligation to join the ECHR, but have joined the association with certain conditions that the CJEU simply had to take into account. It should also be noted that the Member States, if they reach a consensus, as the "master of the Treaties", always have the option to amend the Treaty accordingly (currently, it is more or less clear that the revision of the Treaty of Lisbon is necessary, even more realistically than at the time Opinion 2/13 was delivered). On the other hand, the CJEU does not, of course, have the possibility to review the Treaty of Lisbon, but it must accept the content of the TreatiesV kontroverznem Mnenju 2/13 je Sodišče EU zavzelo jasno in nedvoumno stališče - osnutek sporazuma o pristopu Evropske unije (EU) k Evropski konvenciji o človekovih pravicah (EKČP) ni združljiv z drugim odstavkom 6. člena Pogodbe o EU oziroma s Protokolom št. 8 k EKČP. Zato načrtovani sporazum ne more začeti veljati, razen če je ustrezno spremenjen ali sta spremenjeni Pogodbi. Mnenje 2/13 je sicer precejšen izziv na poti pridružitve EU k EKČP, vendar v nobenem primeru ne odpravlja in tudi ne onemogoča pridružitvene obveznosti. Zato bo treba najti pot, ki bo vodila k pridružitvi, kar najbrž ne bo preprosto, je pa izvedljivo. Če se bo postopek pridruževanja udejanjal v strokovnih okvirih, s strokovnimi argumenti, ter ne bo prevladalo politikantstvo, meniva, da bodo mogoče nekatere spremembe pridružitvenega sporazuma v smeri, kot je nakazalo Sodišče EU. Če in kolikor pa do tega ne bo prišlo, to ne bi smelo biti pripisano (zgolj) Sodišču Evropske unije. Ne pozabimo, da države članice v Pogodbah niso le določile obveznosti pridružitve EU k EKČP, temveč so na to pridružitev vezale določene pogoje, ki jih je Sodišče EU preprosto moralo upoštevati. Prav tako je treba opozoriti, da imajo države članice, če dosežejo konsenz, kot "gospodarice Pogodb" zmeraj možnost Pogodbi ustrezno spremeniti (kar je zdaj, ko je bolj ali manj jasno, da je revizija Lizbonske pogodba nujna, še bolj realno, kot je bilo v času izdaje Mnenja 2/13). Na drugi strani Sodišče EU možnosti revizije Lizbonske pogodbe seveda nima, temveč mora Pogodbi sprejeti kot objektivno danostTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of SloveniaUniverza v Ljubljani, Pravna fakulteta